Dim lighting, Perception, and Disadvantage on Attacks

[Segev]

Dim lighting imposes disadvantage on perception checks based on sight. It imposes no disadvantage on attack rolls by itself. Typically, for instance, groups fighting using nothing but darkvision in pure darkness will act as if they are all in dim lighting, and suffer no penalties unless and until someone tries to hide.

An oft-raised issue with dim lighting imposing disadvantage on perception rolls is the question of why it's easier to spot a Hidden creature that is Invisible than it is one that is merely in dim light.

Technically, it's not: the invisible creature cannot be perceived by sight, and perception checks relying on sight automatically fail. But still, the creature must take the Hide action, or it's assumed you know where it is via other senses.

Likewise, however, if you can make a Perception check without disadvantage to detect and locate an Invisible creature that is hiding, shouldn't you be able to do the same for a creature hiding in a dimly-lit area? You simply do not rely on sight for the perception check.

The trouble with this is that it almost makes the "dim light causes disadvantage on perception" rule a waste of ink: if you can use other senses to detect creatures hiding in dim lighting, why would you ever bother using sight? The obvious answer is "well, maybe they're magically silent," and a less obvious (to me) answer is "maybe you're looking for an object hidden in the dimly lit area, not a creature, so the only sense that works is sight." (I will make allowance that feeling around for something is going to AT LEAST have disadvantage, if not just a flat-out much higher DC, simply due to the short range of the sense of touch.)

But here's where my speculation starts: If you cannot see a target, you suffer disadvantage on attacks against them. Just because you know where a target is doesn't mean you can see it - e.g., if you succeed on your Perception check to notice a hidden invisible creature, it's still invisible and you still suffer disadvantage on attacks against it.

If you're dealing with a creature hiding in dim light, you don't suffer disadvantage to notice it and locate it well enough to make an attack against it, but you would suffer disadvantage to be able to actually SEE the creature. So, a recommended procedure, here: Roll to perceive the creature without disadvantage. If you succeed, roll a second die; if you succeed on that one, as well, you see them and suffer no disadvantage on the attack roll. If you fail on the second one, that was your "disadvantage" die; you know where they are, but you can't spot them in the dim lighting, so you suffer the disadvantage on the attack roll for not seeing your target.

This also works even more smoothly with passive perception, since you can use normal passive perception to notice the hiding creature's presence, but the -5 for disadvantage to see if you actually SEE them.

I think this closes most of the holes and inconsistencies. Dim lighting disadvantage on perception is still relevant, but is not as inconsistent as it often seems because most of the time you're just passively checking to see if you sense something by ANY sense. Only when sight matters do you care that it's dim light.

[Man_Over_Game]

I like this solution a lot. Well done!

What gets really weird about this is throwing in anything that has a good nose, like a Dog. They get Advantage on Perception Checks that use scent.

So the question is, does a blind dog contest your Stealth check with Advantage, Disadvantage, or both?

[Unoriginal]

Dim lighting imposes disadvantage on perception checks based on sight. It imposes no disadvantage on attack rolls by itself. Typically, for instance, groups fighting using nothing but darkvision in pure darkness will act as if they are all in dim lighting, and suffer no penalties unless and until someone tries to hide.

An oft-raised issue with dim lighting imposing disadvantage on perception rolls is the question of why it's easier to spot a Hidden creature that is Invisible than it is one that is merely in dim light.

Technically, it's not: the invisible creature cannot be perceived by sight, and perception checks relying on sight automatically fail. But still, the creature must take the Hide action, or it's assumed you know where it is via other senses.

Knowing where a creature is does not remove the disadvantage for attacking a creature you can't see.

A creature in dim light that is not trying to hide is not hidden either, and as such there is no WIS check with Perception proficiency to perceive them.

A DEX (stealth) check is required to have the character be both unseen and unheard (as well as not perceived by the other senses). Invisibility makes the "unseen" part an automatic, and dim light makes the "unseen" part easier. Other circumstances can make the other senses unable or barely able to notice someone, like making it easier to be unheard in a loud tavern with music and singing than in a library, or making it harder for a dog to pick up your scent if you've jumped into the river.

[KorvinStarmast]

[B]So, a recommended procedure, here: Overcomplicating combat with extraneous die rolls.

Knowing where a creature is does not remove the disadvantage for attacking a creature you can't see.

A creature in dim light that is not trying to hide is not hidden either, and as such there is no WIS check with Perception proficiency to perceive them. They are clear enough to see to attack with the weapons at hand.
As my pistol instructor used to tell us: Aim at center of mass. Head shots are for Hollywood) :smalltongue:

[Segev]

I like this solution a lot. Well done!Thanks!


What gets really weird about this is throwing in anything that has a good nose, like a Dog. They get Advantage on Perception Checks that use scent.

So the question is, does a blind dog contest your Stealth check with Advantage, Disadvantage, or both?The trivial answer is, "The DM decides," but since the rules are allegedly there to provide guidance, I would suggest that the default is that all senses apply unless circumstances dictate otherwise. So if something has "keen [specific sense]," it is best to assume they have advantage on every perception roll unless the DM decides the sense cannot apply (or would be disadvantaged).

Therefore, if the dog is looking for you in dim lighting, he has Advantage, just as he would in any other lighting, unless for some reason his sense of smell shouldn't apply. If a normal human is looking for you in dim lighting and you would let him roll without disadvantage to notice you if you were invisible, he doesn't suffer disadvantage for being in dim lighting, either.


Overcomplicating combat with extraneous die rolls.
They are clear enough to see to attack with the weapons at hand.
As my pistol instructor used to tell us: Aim at center of mass. Head shots are for Hollywood) :smalltongue:I am unsure if you missed what I wrote leading into it or not. Your statement implies you think I am adding extra die rolls when none are needed, but you do not provide any guidance on how you would resolve the contradictions and such that show up without some sort of ruling.

Is it easier to find a creature who is invisible than one who is in dim lighting? Does dim lighting's "disadvantage on perception checks involving sight" rule ever meaningfully apply?

Do you make a creature roll with disadvantage on perception checks in dim lighting at all? IF not, there are no more die rolls involved here than there. There is only the need to mark the "disadvantage die" so you know that it only applies to determining if you see the creature.

[Xetheral]

I like this approach! I would note, however, that it only applies in a very specific circumstance: the target hidden in the dim light has an ability that lets them hide in the dim light (like the Skulker feat) AND that target is within hearing range of the attacker. But I think this approach is great for resolving what would otherwise be a very thorny situation.

[Segev]

I like this approach! I would note, however, that it only applies in a very specific circumstance: the target hidden in the dim light has an ability that lets them hide in the dim light (like the Skulker feat) AND that target is within hearing range of the attacker. But I think this approach is great for resolving what would otherwise be a very thorny situation.

Technically, you can hide regardless of the lighting condition. It just requires somewhere TO hide. This situation arises no matter how you are hiding as long as you are hiding in dim light.

But yeah, that's the idea: this is a case that is frustrating because it seems to have inherent contradictions. My suggestion is just a way to resolve it within, mostly, the rules. (With passive perception, I think this is 100% RAW; with the rolled perception, the "roll the disadvantage die separate" thing is a house rule to solve the sticky difference between perception with various senses.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it easier to find a creature who is invisible than one who is in dim lighting? No, and I don't need a die roll to decide that.

Do you make a creature roll with disadvantage on perception checks in dim lighting at all? IF not, there are no more die rolls involved here than there. There is only the need to mark the "disadvantage die" so you know that it only applies to determining if you see the creature. Sometimes, since perception isn't all visual. Depends on what they are, or are not, looking for and what the cues are.

See also various beasts who have perception advantage for smell or hearing.

I usually (not always) put a -5 on passive perception in dim light; they never see it but I get to apply it when passive perception enters into it.

[Xetheral]

Technically, you can hide regardless of the lighting condition. It just requires somewhere TO hide. This situation arises no matter how you are hiding as long as you are hiding in dim light.

Except that normally if you have something to hide in or behind regardless of the dim light, then you can't be seen anyway because vision is blocked by whatever you're hiding in or behind. If you're hiding in Heavy Obscurement, for example, checks to see you automatically fail (I assume that's one of the mechanical penalties of the Blinded condition that you apply to someone looking into Heavy Obscurement, even if you don't always apply the "can't see" penalty?). Similarly, if someone is hiding behind an opaque object, I assume any DM would rule that they are impossible to see even though opacity isn't expressly addressed in the rules.

Still, edge cases exist for marginal hiding spots where one can't be seen clearly, and other Hiding features like Mask of the Wild and Naturally Stealthy can come up in dim light environments. So you're right that my claim was overly narrow. Still, unless it is an edge case where the DM is allowing hiding despite the hider being able to be seen, or a special hiding feature is in play, I don't see your approach as necessary.

Edit: but I want to reiterate that I think it's great when it is needed!

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, I never thought you didn't have disadvantage when trying to perceive an invisible creature. Or am I misunderstanding the problem?

[Segev]

Yeah, I never thought you didn't have disadvantage when trying to perceive an invisible creature. Or am I misunderstanding the problem?

I think you're understanding the problem, but to be clear on my end:

As I understand the RAW, there is no disadvantage assumed for making a Perception check (or using passive perception) to detect an Invisible creature in a brightly lit area. You can't see the creature, but you're assumed to know it's there by other senses unless it is hiding, in which case you make a normal perception check (or use normal passive perception) to see if you can notice the Invisible creature's presence past the DC set by its Hide check.

[EggKookoo]

Ok, but an invisible creature is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" per the Invisible condition in the PHB. If you're trying to perceive an invisible creature through sight only, you auto-fail. So you can only perceive an invisible creature through other senses, which is akin to trying to perceive a creature in darkness. Again, the PHB: "For the purpose of hiding, the [invisible] creature is heavily obscured."

So sure, I don't know that the rules outright say any attempt to perceive an invisible creature, under any kind of lighting, has disadvantage, but it's pretty clearly implied IMO.

[Aimeryan]

Different senses have different ranges of detection. Unfortunately, this is not spelt out, however, it is logical that you are not hearing someone on the opposite side of the world, nor smell/feel/taste... Thunderclap explictly mentions the sound can be heard up to 100ft away, so it is clear that someone who couldn't see the thunderclap, and was more than 100ft away would not detect it. I don't think the books need to spell out that your senses have ranges - it should be common understanding that they do.

Furthermore, the books say:


Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.

It goes that there must therefore be perception checks for other than detecting something trying to hide, which necessitates that the DM determine a DC for that check. I've never bought into that something not trying to hide is automatically detected. Objects do not try to hide, yet how often have you found yourself looking for your keys, even when they turned out to technically be in line of sight? Similarly, in the middle of a city I might be surrounded by people, yet I don't know where each and every one of them is, even when in line of sight.

Perception checks should be required for detecting anything, it is just that in most situations a passive perception of 10 would easily suffice, so it is not necessary to check. However, there are numerous reasons a DC may be set by the DM; one such situation would be a dimly lit environment where disadvantage on sight may be enough to require a check - if using sight to make the detection. Now, it may be that the environment is very quiet, the distance is quite close, and without trying to hide a passive perception of 10 would be enough to make a detection by passive hearing of 10, so a check is still not needed. On the other hand, it may be that the environment is noisy, or the distances not close, and it is dimly lit - in which case, the DM may decide on a DC for sight and a DC for hearing and see if you pass either (with disadvantage on the sight).

This is also the reason for which in the middle of loud combat something going invisible and moving away should require a perception check via hearing to detect the location. It may be still close and easy enough to detect via passive hearing, or it may not - that should be for the DM to decide on a DC and see if anyone passes. An action can be spent to make an active check, which may roll higher.

[Narsham01]

I think you're understanding the problem, but to be clear on my end:

As I understand the RAW, there is no disadvantage assumed for making a Perception check (or using passive perception) to detect an Invisible creature in a brightly lit area. You can't see the creature, but you're assumed to know it's there by other senses unless it is hiding, in which case you make a normal perception check (or use normal passive perception) to see if you can notice the Invisible creature's presence past the DC set by its Hide check.

PHB 291 for Invisible states "For the purposes of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured."

It is possible for a creature to be both lightly and heavily obscured: for example, in darkness and in patchy fog as well. Such a creature would be only lightly obscured against those with darkvision, but would be heavily obscured against those without it.

An invisible creature in dim light is both lightly and heavily obscured against creatures without darkvision, and is only heavily obscured against creatures with darkvision. Therefore, the heavily obscured rules would apply.

To be hidden, most creatures must first be heavily obscured, and if they were only lightly obscured, they would no longer be hidden. Or to phrase another way, a creature carrying a candle on a 10' pole in a dark cave is in dim light. Creatures without darkvision can see such a creature if it is in direct line of sight, EVEN IF IT WAS HIDDEN, because it is only lightly obscured.

The disadvantage to perception checks for locating hidden creatures in dim lighting conditions therefore never applies. If they are in dim lighting and you can see them, you can see them despite their stealth check. If they are in dim lighting and behind total cover, you can't see them, so you would have to try to hear them, which makes that case identical to the invisible creature hiding in front of you.

Therefore, you always use an unmodified perception which does not rely upon sight to attempt to locate hidden creatures. The disadvantage in dim light (or, in the case of creatures with Darkvision, the disadvantage in darkness) applies for things like detecting traps, finding secret doors, perceiving magical runes, and so forth.

While it may seem unfair that hidden creatures are always detected without disadvantage to perception, in practice most of these cases involve passive perception, and most characters (and many creatures) focused on stealth have a reasonable chance to beat even a good passive perception with their stealth. In combat, an active perception check requires an action, which is a pretty high cost; applying disadvantage on that check essentially forces PCs to all find a way to get proficiency on perception checks, and makes stealthy PCs remarkably powerful. They're already quite powerful as-is.

[Xetheral]

The disadvantage to perception checks for locating hidden creatures in dim lighting conditions therefore never applies.

Don't forget the Skulker feat, Mask of the Wild (e.g. in lightly obscuring snowfall and dim light), or the DM ruling that a creature "can't be seen clearly" and can thus try to hide (e.g. in a crowd in dim light). Disadvantage from dim light would apply to visual perception checks in each of those situations.

Or, if the DM rules that seeing someone in dim light has an uncertain outcome despite no one hiding and calls for a check (e.g. spotting someone at very long range) disadvantage from dim light would also apply.

So it's not never, it's just unusual.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not sure I'm entirely grasping the issue at hand here, but I'll offer this:

It's not inherently harder to find/perceive either creature, be they in dim light or just invisible. All those things do is facilitate the hiding to begin with, the stealth roll determines the actual difficulty.

Whether they suffer disadvantage or not depends on how they describe to me their procedure for searching, if their method doesn't involve sight, and is believable beyond a player trying to avoid disadvantage in meta, then they'll roll normally.

Oddly enough the mental image that comes to me for this is a young Kakashi (Naruto) detecting an invisible ninja by smell.

[Renbot]

I assume that normal unmodified perception checks use two senses. Any creature using three or more (echolocation, scent, etc) gets advantage on perception checks. Any creature that goes down to one has disadvantage. Any creature denied all senses does not get a perception check.

From there it is simple.

[Tanarii]

Stop assuming invisible creatures are automatically perceived and pin pointed, and your problem is solved.

An invisible or otherwise unseen creature should be automatically perceived if hearing them is an automatic success. Otherwise, the DM should choose a DC based on distance and environment.

An invisible or otherwise unseen creature should be automatically pinpointed if hearing them clearly enough to pinpoint is an automatic success. Otherwise, the DM should choose a DC based on distance and environment.

Assuming a pretty quiet environment, Hearing a creature move around being enough to perceive automatically is probably automatic at about 30ft. A fighting creature might be 60ft if they aren't yelling battle cries or screaming in pain. Might be 120ft or more if they are. Pin pointing is a different matter. That could easily require a check with a DC to do if you're not adjacent.

At this point, sight checks in dim lighting become relevant any time you're outside of effective perceiving hearing range or outside of effective pinpointing hearing range.

[Segev]

Stop assuming invisible creatures are automatically perceived and pin pointed, and your problem is solved.

An invisible or otherwise unseen creature should be automatically perceived if hearing them is an automatic success. Otherwise, the DM should choose a DC based on distance and environment.

An invisible or otherwise unseen creature should be automatically pinpointed if hearing them clearly enough to pinpoint is an automatic success. Otherwise, the DM should choose a DC based on distance and environment.

Assuming a pretty quiet environment, Hearing a creature move around being enough to perceive automatically is probably automatic at about 30ft. A fighting creature might be 60ft if they aren't yelling battle cries or screaming in pain. Might be 120ft or more if they are. Pin pointing is a different matter. That could easily require a check with a DC to do if you're not adjacent.

At this point, sight checks in dim lighting become relevant any time you're outside of effective perceiving hearing range or outside of effective pinpointing hearing range.

I don't actually see how this changes any of the assumptions I was making in my original post. :smallconfused:

[Tanarii]

I don't actually see how this changes any of the assumptions I was making in my original post. :smallconfused:
If hearing is useless to pinpoint beyond say 30ft (automatically fails without check) and requires a check to pin point from 5ft-30ft, and is useless to perceive beyond say 120ft, and requires a check to perceive from 30ft-120ft, then disadvantage to checks to perceive or pin point becomes relevant beyond those ranges. Or possibly even is automatic compared to a check for hearing, at non-adjacent ranges.

Basically my view is you've got Perception (sight) and perception (hearing) on a scale of automatic success -> DC -> automatic failure, and you use whichever is best. You're never worse off detecting a creature in dim light than an invisible one. You can only have the same or better chances.

[Segev]

If hearing is useless to pinpoint beyond say 30ft (automatically fails without check) and requires a check to pin point from 5ft-30ft, and is useless to perceive beyond say 120ft, and requires a check to perceive from 30ft-120ft, then disadvantage to checks to perceive or pin point becomes relevant beyond those ranges. Or possibly even is automatic compared to a check for hearing, at non-adjacent ranges.

Basically my view is you've got Perception (sight) and perception (hearing) on a scale of automatic success -> DC -> automatic failure, and you use whichever is best. You're never worse off detecting a creature in dim light than an invisible one. You can only have the same or better chances.

While I didn't add ranges beyond which hearing becomes suspect, that more or less follows my thesis in the opening post. Mainly, I'm establishing that however you locate the creature, if you cannot see it, you suffer disadvantage to hit it with attacks. This is, of course, part of the RAW. My extension from it is that, in dim lighting, you still suffer disadvantage on the perception check to see it, even if you do not suffer disadvantage on the perception check to know it's there/where it is. Thus, you might succeed on the check to perceive it, and be able to swing a sword or throw a javelin at it, but you may still fail on the perception check - due to the disadvantage of dim light - to actually see it, so you would still suffer disadvantage on the attack with those weapons.

[strangebloke]

The key thing to remember with stealth/perception is the two part guide:
-You can't detect it if there's no way to detect it.
-You can't hide if there's nowhere to hide.

My usual go-to here is a willowisp in a sealed clay jar. It's incorporeal and in an opaque jar. You can't see it and you can't hear it. It's not 'hiding' necessarily, it doesn't need to, because you can't see or hear it (or smell it honestly)

For sight, its pretty simple. In dim light, a perception check based on sight has disadvantage. You wouldn't, however, even get to make such a check against someone who's invisible.

You could, however, make a perception check based on hearing... but as with sight there are situational factors that might impose advantage or disadvantage, mostly distance and ambient noise. If I'm trying to listen someone on the other side of a busy room, the DM might set a fixed DC for me even though my target isn't trying to hide their words. Conversely if its someone 500 feet away and I'm standing next to a waterfall, I probably just *can't* hear them. If an invisible gnome is sneaking up behind you in the dead of night, you will make a normal check based on perception. If he's screaming, you don't need to make a check at all.

The key thing here is that you don't necessarily get to automatically perceive someone even if they're not hiding. If they're a long ways away or there's some complicating factor like a waterfall or a busy street, it might require a check, or might even be impossible. There's no free solution here, the DM has to arbitrate it and pick something reasonable based on the situation.

EDIT: and since I forgot, there's an easy solution for handling multiple senses as well. Just use whichever sense gives you the best advantage in a situation.

[Tanarii]

While I didn't add ranges beyond which hearing becomes suspect, that more or less follows my thesis in the opening post. Mainly, I'm establishing that however you locate the creature, if you cannot see it, you suffer disadvantage to hit it with attacks. This is, of course, part of the RAW. My extension from it is that, in dim lighting, you still suffer disadvantage on the perception check to see it, even if you do not suffer disadvantage on the perception check to know it's there/where it is. Thus, you might succeed on the check to perceive it, and be able to swing a sword or throw a javelin at it, but you may still fail on the perception check - due to the disadvantage of dim light - to actually see it, so you would still suffer disadvantage on the attack with those weapons.
Your system of rolling works well if there's the DC to hear and see them are the same.

That's the part that's a bit quirky of the way I think about it. Which is worse, hearing at DC 15 or seeing at DC 12 with disadvantage? Depends on the bonus. Ain't nobody got time to crunch that for determining proper resolution. :smallamused:

[Segev]

Your system of rolling works well if there's the DC to hear and see them are the same.

That's the part that's a bit quirky of the way I think about it. Which is worse, hearing at DC 15 or seeing at DC 12 with disadvantage? Depends on the bonus. Ain't nobody got time to crunch that for determining proper resolution. :smallamused:

Insofar as 5e's simplified abstractions work, I tend to assume that the DC to perceive is the same, and the only difference is whether the sense gets advantage, disadvantage, or neither. For most purposes, I'd go with the sense that has the most advantage, unless that sense strictly can't work.

Since you explicitly must "see" targets to not suffer disadvantage in attacking them, that's where the "sight has disadvantage" matters even though other senses can detect them just fine. i.e., you could hear - but not see - them in dim lighting. Which would put you in the same boat as somebody facing an invisible creature he could hear but not see.

[Tanarii]

Insofar as 5e's simplified abstractions work, I tend to assume that the DC to perceive is the same, and the only difference is whether the sense gets advantage, disadvantage, or neither. For most purposes, I'd go with the sense that has the most advantage, unless that sense strictly can't work.
Unfortunately the ranges at which smell, hearing and sight work are dramatically different, as well as environmental impact. That's going to change make the DC scaling between "doesn't work" and "works automatically" very different.

It could easily be possible to be too far to smell someone, far enough away it's DC 30 to hear them over background noise, and DC 10 to see them in the mist.

OTOH if you just want to go with failure, DC 10, success as your guidelines for detecting something via each sense, that isn't hiding then it's not worth worrying about. With stealth checks replacing hearing's success (no DC) or DC 10 if they try and hide. (

[strangebloke]

Unfortunately the ranges at which smell, hearing and sight work are dramatically different, as well as environmental impact. That's going to change make the DC scaling between "doesn't work" and "works automatically" very different.

It could easily be possible to be too far to smell someone, far enough away it's DC 30 to hear them over background noise, and DC 10 to see them in the mist.

OTOH if you just want to go with failure, DC 10, success as your guidelines for detecting something via each sense, that isn't hiding then it's not worth worrying about. With stealth checks replacing hearing's success (no DC) or DC 10 if they try and hide. (

Well, I think its important to distinguish between fixed-DC checks and opposed checks. Fixed DCs only come up when nobody is trying to hide anything and are determined by environmental factors like distance, obscuring terrain, ambient noise. In most cases where such a thing would come up you are only really dealing with one sense anyway, like "Make a perception check to see if you can hear the conversation they're having on the other side of the bar." The DM has to set the DC according to the environment, but its mercifully probably only going to be one sense at a time.

For opposed checks you just use whichever sense is the best in the moment. If you can see them it doesn't matter if you can't hear or smell them. If you can hear them it doesn't matter if you can smell them, etc.

In dim light but you're close enough to hear them? No disadvantage to notice their approach.
In bright light but they're too far away to be heard? Still no disadvantage.
Its dim light and they're too far away to be easily heard? Disadvantage.

[Aimeryan]

While I didn't add ranges beyond which hearing becomes suspect, that more or less follows my thesis in the opening post. Mainly, I'm establishing that however you locate the creature, if you cannot see it, you suffer disadvantage to hit it with attacks. This is, of course, part of the RAW. My extension from it is that, in dim lighting, you still suffer disadvantage on the perception check to see it, even if you do not suffer disadvantage on the perception check to know it's there/where it is. Thus, you might succeed on the check to perceive it, and be able to swing a sword or throw a javelin at it, but you may still fail on the perception check - due to the disadvantage of dim light - to actually see it, so you would still suffer disadvantage on the attack with those weapons.

I think I would allow an automatic success on sight in dim light for a creature close enough to swing a sword at - the DC certainly isn't going to be high. Eh, maybe if it was a rat or something. Perhaps there is a range (about 60ft?) that I could see a hearing check being passed to pinpoint a creature making enough noise (maybe Sir Clankalot or something), while not being able to see them in dim light at that distance (particularly if they were not moving - perhaps a guard on duty or something). Longbow at that distance would normally not be disadvantaged, but not being able to see them would cause that to be case.

[Segev]

I think I would allow an automatic success on sight in dim light for a creature close enough to swing a sword at - the DC certainly isn't going to be high. Eh, maybe if it was a rat or something. Perhaps there is a range (about 60ft?) that I could see a hearing check being passed to pinpoint a creature making enough noise (maybe Sir Clankalot or something), while not being able to see them in dim light at that distance (particularly if they were not moving - perhaps a guard on duty or something). Longbow at that distance would normally not be disadvantaged, but not being able to see them would cause that to be case.

Generally speaking, if the creature isn't hiding and there aren't extenuating circumstances, I would assume you can see them even in dim light. No need for a check.

[strangebloke]

Generally speaking, if the creature isn't hiding and there aren't extenuating circumstances, I would assume you can see them even in dim light. No need for a check.

This is my basic issue, I think. I don't think perception covers "seeing" a creature after you already know where they are. If you know where they are and they are in any way visible, you can see them, period.

The perception check in dim light thing just covers instances where they are hiding and you can't hear their presence. For example if Rambeau the goblin sniper is hiding in a treetop a hundred feet away drawing hi bow. You can see him, but he's hiding, perhaps behind partial cover of some kind, and its dark so its a little hard to notice him.

But conversely if Rambeau is instead doing something that makes noise (say he's hiding ten feet away behind a nearby tree) you can use hearing (without disadvantage) to determine his location, and once his location is known, well. You can see him, or you will be able to see him as soon as he comes out into view, because you know where he is and you know what to look for.

[Segev]

This is my basic issue, I think. I don't think perception covers "seeing" a creature after you already know where they are. If you know where they are and they are in any way visible, you can see them, period.

The perception check in dim light thing just covers instances where they are hiding and you can't hear their presence. For example if Rambeau the goblin sniper is hiding in a treetop a hundred feet away drawing hi bow. You can see him, but he's hiding, perhaps behind partial cover of some kind, and its dark so its a little hard to notice him.

But conversely if Rambeau is instead doing something that makes noise (say he's hiding ten feet away behind a nearby tree) you can use hearing (without disadvantage) to determine his location, and once his location is known, well. You can see him, or you will be able to see him as soon as he comes out into view, because you know where he is and you know what to look for.

I assure you, I have been able to tell roughly where something is without being able to see it. Insects buzzing over in a corner, for example. In dim lighting, knowing Rambeau is over there but not being able to pick him out against the rest of the shadowy mess is reasonable.

[Aimeryan]

Generally speaking, if the creature isn't hiding and there aren't extenuating circumstances, I would assume you can see them even in dim light. No need for a check.


I assure you, I have been able to tell roughly where something is without being able to see it. Insects buzzing over in a corner, for example. In dim lighting, knowing Rambeau is over there but not being able to pick him out against the rest of the shadowy mess is reasonable.

'Hiding' would certainly give you a better chance at not being seen, presuming you do it well (roll highly) - however, it wouldn't be the only possibility. Even in bright light, at a far enough distance, it can be difficult to see something if that something does not have good contrast with the background and is not making significant perpendicular motion.

Unfortunately, it is not specified just how 'dim' dim light is. A torch (flaming kind) at night sheds dim light very quickly - so much that at just 2m away from the torch it can be difficult to make out anything. Torches in 5e shed dim light after 20ft; it is quite possible that this dim light is meant to be really dim.

To be honest, I don't see it coming up all that much that without hiding, in dim light, you would be able to pinpoint something's location via sound but fail on the check to see it. Our sight is far better at pinpointing than our hearing is - it would really require some extraordinary conditions.


Going back to the opening post, this is the line that we are contesting and thus makes the argument in the opening post fall apart:


Technically, it's not: the invisible creature cannot be perceived by sight, and perception checks relying on sight automatically fail. But still, the creature must take the Hide action, or it's assumed you know where it is via other senses.

For sight, the DC to be seen at moderate distances without mitigating circumstances involved would be so low that it would be an automatic pass. You would have to add in other circumstances to get that DC high enough to require a check; much longer distance, dim lighting, poor contrast (brown clothing on a muddy field), little to no perpendicular motion, etc. Furthermore, due to the way sight works, there is little difference between perceiving and pinpointing via this sense - the DC at most would be a single point difference between the two.

For hearing, due to the way hearing works, there is a large difference between perceiving and pinpointing via this sense. The DC for pinpointing via hearing would be fairly high, even in favourable circumstances; low distance, good contrast (no other noise), etc. The DC for perceiving could be much lower in the same circumstances, even an autopass. Tanarii gave some good examples.

Hiding swaps out the DC for your stealth result, if better. Someone hiding on the other side of the world still can't be perceived just because they rolled low on the stealth result. Likewise, if an invisible creature is 100ft away in a noisy environment such that the DC to perceive them would be 25, rolling a stealth result of 19 shouldn't make it easier to be heard than if you hadn't attempted to hide at all.

[strangebloke]

I assure you, I have been able to tell roughly where something is without being able to see it. Insects buzzing over in a corner, for example. In dim lighting, knowing Rambeau is over there but not being able to pick him out against the rest of the shadowy mess is reasonable.

Seems like a lot of extra work for no purpose.

[Segev]

Seems like a lot of extra work for no purpose.

I disagree. The purpose is to explore the rules to figure out how they work so that you don't wind up with having Disadvantage to perceive a visible creature hiding in dim lighting conditions, but no Disadvantage to perceive an invisible creature hiding in bright lighting conditions. While still having dim lighting conditions' rules about Disadvantage on perception involving sight actually matter at all.

And it also isn't "a lot of work." It's the same number of die rolls. The only thing you have to do is actually mark the "disadvantage die" somehow so you know to only apply it at all if it's a) lower than the regular die and b) applying to sight.

A creature hiding or otherwise requiring perception to notice in dim light should not impose disadvantage except on sight-based checks. Which means dim lighting only matter if there is no sound or smell and/or the perceiving creature is deaf and unable to smell. Except... sight is important to targeting both attacks and certain spells. So it's important to note whether you can SEE the creature, as well as whether you know where it is well enough to make an attack roll. If you cannot see it, you can still attack at disadvantage, or use an AoE, as long as you know it's there. And you have no Disadvantage to know it's there, because otherwise you somehow have a harder time locating a visible creature in dim light than you do an invisible one in bright light.

[strangebloke]

I disagree. The purpose is to explore the rules to figure out how they work so that you don't wind up with having Disadvantage to perceive a visible creature hiding in dim lighting conditions, but no Disadvantage to perceive an invisible creature hiding in bright lighting conditions. While still having dim lighting conditions' rules about Disadvantage on perception involving sight actually matter at all.

And it also isn't "a lot of work." It's the same number of die rolls. The only thing you have to do is actually mark the "disadvantage die" somehow so you know to only apply it at all if it's a) lower than the regular die and b) applying to sight.

A creature hiding or otherwise requiring perception to notice in dim light should not impose disadvantage except on sight-based checks. Which means dim lighting only matter if there is no sound or smell and/or the perceiving creature is deaf and unable to smell. Except... sight is important to targeting both attacks and certain spells. So it's important to note whether you can SEE the creature, as well as whether you know where it is well enough to make an attack roll. If you cannot see it, you can still attack at disadvantage, or use an AoE, as long as you know it's there. And you have no Disadvantage to know it's there, because otherwise you somehow have a harder time locating a visible creature in dim light than you do an invisible one in bright light.

you're ignoring what I am saying.

You make an opposed perception check to perceive location using best available sense. Then you can see them, unless they're behind full cover or invisible or you are effectively blind. If they can't be seen but you know their location, you see them as soon as they come into view, same as normal.

This idea that you have to make an extra check to see someone after you know where they are is bogus. Line of sight is best treated as a pure binary.

[Segev]

you're ignoring what I am saying.

You make an opposed perception check to perceive location using best available sense. Then you can see them, unless they're behind full cover or invisible or you are effectively blind. If they can't be seen but you know their location, you see them as soon as they come into view, same as normal.

This idea that you have to make an extra check to see someone after you know where they are is bogus. Line of sight is best treated as a pure binary.

I am not ignoring you. I am saying you're wrong. Nothing in the rules lets you see a creature just because you can hear or smell it. If you use the best available sense and locate the creature, but that sense is not sight, you do not necessarily automatically see the creature.

If you do automatically see the creature, as you suggest, then the dim lighting rules are so niche aso nearly be a pointless waste of ink.

[Reach Weapon]

If you do automatically see the creature, as you suggest, then the dim lighting rules are so niche aso nearly be a pointless waste of ink.
Even if the dim lighting rules simply do not apply to opposed checks with creatures, shouldn't there be enough hidden stuff to justify the rule?

[Segev]

Even if the dim lighting rules simply do not apply to opposed checks with creatures, shouldn't there be enough hidden stuff to justify the rule?

Maybe, but are you ever sure sight is the ONLY way to detect such things?

Regardless, the rules still do not say you see something just because you hear or smell it.

[strangebloke]

I am not ignoring you. I am saying you're wrong. Nothing in the rules lets you see a creature just because you can hear or amell it. If you use he best available sense and locatehe creature, but yhat sense is not sight, you do not necessarily automatically see the creature.

Dim light rules say that perception checks that rely on sight have disadvantage. It does not say that you need to make a perception check to see someone in dim light. The general assumption of 5e is that if you can be seen and are not hiding, you are seen. To give the relevant quote:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. Usually, with the note that a DM may allow you to sneak up on someone if they're distracted. If you're not hiding and can be seen, you are usually seen. EDIT: To be clear, there are obvious cases where you can be 'found' but not 'seen.' For example, if you're hiding behind total cover or you're invisible or the enemy is blind. But absent any of these reasons it seems weird to add this extra layer of granularity where you have to roll twice to really see them.

If I need one perception check to 'find' my target and a second check to 'see' my target in dim light, wouldn't this also be the case (without disadvantage) in bright light? Isn't that just a superfluous double roll?

But even beyond this, the problem I have with this ruling is that its quite unclear. Do I have to make this "perception check to see" only once a combat? Every turn? Every time the creature momentarily ducks behind full cover? We can both agree there's no perception roll based on hearing to determine the location of a creature that isn't hiding, why do we have to make a perception roll to see someone who we have a clear line of sight to and know the location of? EDIT: Tanarii said it better. IF you're 'found' you're no longer hidden, so it seems only logical you don't get the benefits of being hidden, including being unseen.


If you do automatically see the creature, as you suggest, then the dim lighting rules are so niche aso nearly be a pointless waste of ink.
I mean first of all, why can't rules be sorta niche?

But secondly, its really not that niche. We actually have guidance as to audible ranges courtesy of the official 5e dnd screen (yes, its really messed up that this isn't printed in the DMG) and the ranges are pretty short.


Trying to be quiet 2d6 × 5 feet

Normal noise level 2d6 × 10 feet

Very loud 2d6 × 50 feet


So in a scenario where one individual is sneaking up on another, we have a maximum suggested distance for audibility of sixty feet. I'm unclear as to whether you would merely have disadvantage on hearing checks outside this range, or wouldn't be allowed to make checks at all, but it doesn't really matter. Going off this guidance, there's a pretty common scenario where you have to make a perception check to avoid a surprise round and sight is equal to or better than hearing. Better in bright light, equal in dim light.

Well, unless its dark out and you have 60 feet or less of darkvision I guess.

[Tanarii]

Maybe, but are you ever sure sight is the ONLY way to detect such things?The vast majority of the time my players are making Perception checks to detect hidden non-creature things, it's sight-based. Hints of things that may lead to a realizing there is a secret door/compartment or trap. I'd say in most games that's by far the biggest impact of Dim Light. -5 to Passive Perception for noticing things that might make you realize there is a trap or secret door.

Of course, most of the time PCs are using Investigation to actively look (typically using Passive Investigation as they scout along actively looking) for the secret doors / traps directly IMC anyway. But Passive Perception may give a clue there is something to investigate, and Dim Light has a huge impact there.


Regardless, the rules still do not say you see something just because you hear or smell it.Agreed. In fact, if they're invisible you automatically don't just because you perceive it's there. But they do say if you succeed in the Hide action you gain the benefits of unseen attackers. By implication if you overcome their success with a follow up Search action, they should no longer gain the benefits. But I like your distinction between overcoming the success by hearing vs overcoming via sight.

Nor do they say you pin point it's location and don't have to guess where to attack just because you perceive it by hearing or smelling it, but that's a whole 'nother bucket of DM-fiat worms. :smallamused:

[Aimeryan]

you're ignoring what I am saying.

You make an opposed perception check to perceive location using best available sense. Then you can see them, unless they're behind full cover or invisible or you are effectively blind. If they can't be seen but you know their location, you see them as soon as they come into view, same as normal.

This idea that you have to make an extra check to see someone after you know where they are is bogus. Line of sight is best treated as a pure binary.

The problem we have here is that there are no camouflage rules to reference. In order to:


Have line of sight to the target; not obscured, in darkness, or invisible
Know the exact the location of the target
Not be able to distinguish the target from the background

Requires that the target be of such low contrast that even knowing where they are you are not able to visually pick them out from the background; i.e., camouflage. Now, a DM can make DC checks with this in mind, however, it is not spelt out so most DMs are not going to do this. Certainly it is possible to know where something is and not "see" it though, even though it is technically visible to you.

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/media/1952695/find-the-snake_reveal_2020-07-16.jpg

The snake isn't even hiding, it is just very difficult to see in this background. Now imagine if it was dim light. You might be able to hear this precisely enough know the location at this distance and strike at it with a sword, yet still not see it.



But even beyond this, the problem I have with this ruling is that its quite unclear. Do I have to make this "perception check to see" only once a combat? Every turn? Every time the creature momentarily ducks behind full cover? We can both agree there's no perception roll based on hearing to determine the location of a creature that isn't hiding, why do we have to make a perception roll to see someone who we have a clear line of sight to and know the location of?

This is what passive perception is for. The DC can change, but no rolls are required. When the DC is low enough for the passive perception to meet it then the DM makes the call. Using an action a roll can be made, which might result in something higher than the passive perception and change the situation.

The bolded line is both incorrect and correct; there is no roll, however, there is a check. If a creature is out of line of sight (or invisible) and some distance away (say 100ft), there is absolutely a perception check via hearing vs the DC set by the DM. If the distance decreases, or the creature makes more noise (or background noise lowers), the DC lowers. At some point passive perception meets the lowering DC and the presence of the creature is revealed. In order to pinpoint the creature by hearing a more difficult DC must be met, which if I was the DM would not be until the creature was quite close.

[Tanarii]

The bolded line is both incorrect and correct; there is no roll, however, there is a check. If a creature is out of line of sight (or invisible) and some distance away (say 100ft), there is absolutely a perception check via hearing vs the DC set by the DM. If the distance decreases, or the creature makes more noise (or background noise lowers), the DC lowers. At some point passive perception meets the lowering DC and the presence of the creature is revealed. In order to pinpoint the creature by hearing a more difficult DC must be met, which if I was the DM would not be until the creature was quite close.
Some folks maintain that a non-hiding creature is automatically perceive and even pin pointed.

Personally I agree with you, the DM always has the option to set a Perception check vs a DC of their choice to perceive or pin point a non-hidden creature. Instead of ruling it an automatic success (or automatic failure). And that Perception check may be hearing or even smell based. The frequency of the check and if an action of some kind is required would be up to the DM.

[Aimeryan]

Some folks maintain that a non-hiding creature is automatically perceive and even pin pointed.

Personally I agree with you, the DM always has the option to set a Perception check vs a DC of their choice to perceive or pin point a non-hidden creature. Instead of ruling it an automatic success (or automatic failure). And that Perception check may be hearing or even smell based. The frequency of the check and if an action of some kind is required would be up to the DM.

Heh, indeed. Well, they maintain this until it is pointed out that they don't know the location of every creature on the planet that is currently not hiding. At which point, they eventually agree there must be a range at which automatic perception is not a thing, which evolves into realising that the perception roll is not just for hidden creatures. Sure, there are no rules that say they don't know the location of everyone and everything not hiding no matter where they are, however, there is meant to be some common sense involved in DMing - not all of it will be written down. Besides (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Perception):


Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.

Bolded for emphasis: Perception is not just for detecting the presence of something hidden, its for detecting the presence of something full-stop. Similarly, for Thunderclap:


You create a burst of thunderous sound that can be heard up to 100 feet away.

Clearly a limit on how far a thunderous sound can be heard (and only 100ft, at that!). The can in the sentence is also a little supportive, suggesting there is the possibility it will also not be heard within the 100ft - will would have implied automatic success. Similarly, for the Invisible condition:


An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.

Once again, not will be detected, or, is always detected. It therefore supposes there must be a chance of failure, which in 5e is represented by a DC check.

[strangebloke]

The problem we have here is that there are no camouflage rules to reference. In order to:


Have line of sight to the target; not obscured, in darkness, or invisible
Know the exact the location of the target
Not be able to distinguish the target from the background

Requires that the target be of such low contrast that even knowing where they are you are not able to visually pick them out from the background; i.e., camouflage. Now, a DM can make DC checks with this in mind, however, it is not spelt out so most DMs are not going to do this. Certainly it is possible to know where something is and not "see" it though, even though it is technically visible to you.

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/media/1952695/find-the-snake_reveal_2020-07-16.jpg

The snake isn't even hiding, it is just very difficult to see in this background. Now imagine if it was dim light. You might be able to hear this precisely enough know the location at this distance and strike at it with a sword, yet still not see it.

I think using tiny camouflaged snakes in still images is rather pushing the constraints of what 5e can simulate. In such a case I as a DM might ask for a secondary check, much like you'd have to test perception to see the outline of a secret door. But I don't think that such a check is always required by the rules.

I would also generally assume that its a static DC rather than an opposed check.



This is what passive perception is for. The DC can change, but no rolls are required. When the DC is low enough for the passive perception to meet it then the DM makes the call. Using an action a roll can be made, which might result in something higher than the passive perception and change the situation.

The bolded line is both incorrect and correct; there is no roll, however, there is a check. If a creature is out of line of sight (or invisible) and some distance away (say 100ft), there is absolutely a perception check via hearing vs the DC set by the DM. If the distance decreases, or the creature makes more noise (or background noise lowers), the DC lowers. At some point passive perception meets the lowering DC and the presence of the creature is revealed. In order to pinpoint the creature by hearing a more difficult DC must be met, which if I was the DM would not be until the creature was quite close.

Sure its contingent on audible range, which has to be decided upon the basis of a host of factors like terrain, background noise, etc. (or to put it more honestly, it just needs to be decided by DM fiat because this isn't 3.5)

Hm.

honestly this whole system just really sucks, and I'm not sure there's an easy way to resolve it.



Once again, not will be detected, or, is always detected. It therefore supposes there must be a chance of failure, which in 5e is represented by a DC check.

This is a line of logic that I fundamentally don't agree with. An implication that there might be a chance of failure can't be seriously used to argue that there must be a chance of failure. For example, a sound 'can' be heard, but might not be because:

everyone in range is deaf
there is no one in range
the source of sound was suppressed by silence

The proof that an exception exists is not proof that a specific exception must exist.

[Aimeryan]

This is a line of logic that I fundamentally don't agree with. An implication that there might be a chance of failure can't be seriously used to argue that there must be a chance of failure. For example, a sound 'can' be heard, but might not be because:

everyone in range is deaf
there is no one in range
the source of sound was suppressed by silence

The proof that an exception exists is not proof that a specific exception must exist.

It is definitely not proof, it just leaves open the possibility. As mentioned, the rules don't go into this, one way or the other. Common sense is that hearing something is not guaranteed, pinpointing the sound even less so. This is especially true as distance increases, as ambient noises increases, etc.

If you wish to rule that the exact location of an invisible creature 500ft away is known just because it is not actively attempting to hide then neither me nor the rules are stopping you from doing so. If you acknowledge that at such a distance it wont be heard/smelt/tasted/felt (unless it is playing the drums or something stupid), then we are just negotiating on where the ranges are.

[Telok]

As amusing as all this is, I'd like to point out that RL militaries are extremely interested in questions like this and their basic research done from the 1950s through the 1980s is mostly available for free on the internet. You don't need to make up numbers for how far away people see each other under various levels of moonlight, or common spotting ranges in different types of jungle, you can look it up.

[strangebloke]

It is definitely not proof, it just leaves open the possibility. As mentioned, the rules don't go into this, one way or the other. Common sense is that hearing something is not guaranteed, pinpointing the sound even less so. This is especially true as distance increases, as ambient noises increases, etc.

If you wish to rule that the exact location of an invisible creature 500ft away is known just because it is not actively attempting to hide then neither me nor the rules are stopping you from doing so. If you acknowledge that at such a distance it wont be heard/smelt/tasted/felt (unless it is playing the drums or something stupid), then we are just negotiating on where the ranges are.
Fair enough.

Inside me there are two wolves. One wants very clear and concise lookup tables, the other really doesn't want that.

As amusing as all this is, I'd like to point out that RL militaries are extremely interested in questions like this and their basic research done from the 1950s through the 1980s is mostly available for free on the internet. You don't need to make up numbers for how far away people see each other under various levels of moonlight, or common spotting ranges in different types of jungle, you can look it up.

Not really, considering the level of imprecision DND works at. Whatsoever the frick does a 23 passive perception count for in military research? What counts as dim light and what counts as darkness? How noisy in a Starspawn Mangler?

Simulationism has its limitations.